Wilso wrote:The lymph nodes of people with tattoos eventually turn black from the body's attempt to dissolve the ink. Think long and hard.
The proper explanation....
In patients
with malignant melanoma who have tattoos, the tattoo pigment may clinically
mimic metastatic disease.
If a tattoo is present in the area of the primary melanoma, the draining lymph nodes are likely to contain tattoo pigment.
So Kiwi, what you are saying is that what Wilso wrote was completely wrong in the context of a healthy body?
First tattoo
So why not? My first thought would be along the lines of not going to any extremes of size, at least until you've experienced the physical pain of having your skin etched.
And I wouldn't have it put on a really fleshy part of your anatomy, because in 40 years it'll get all wrinkly and what you'll have will be just a smudgy prune, not a pretty picture of a rose, or a good portrait of the Lion King, or whatever it started out as. Go for an area where flab won't be a consideration.
Finally, I would recommend something uncontroversial - you're going to have to live with it for a long time (I certainly hope), and you don't want to be reminded constantly of some, by then, embarrassing enthusiasm, whether political, social, or amatory.
First tattoo
Another point - maybe it won't get all wrinkly, maybe you will grow the other way, it will have to stretch, and your neat picture of Batman will stretch into a hideously attenuated freak. Horrors!
Did you find your tattoos painful, tomkitten?
I didn't find it all that bad.
In fact, there were moments where it was more ticklish than anything.
Sagging isn't an issue for most ink. Fading's more likely - so people need to get some colours redone after 30 or 40 years.
Bella Dea wrote:So Kiwi, what you are saying is that what Wilso wrote was completely wrong in the context of a healthy body?
..I would have presumed one would have thought that I had elaborated his statement in depth a bit more...
KiwiChic wrote:Bella Dea wrote:So Kiwi, what you are saying is that what Wilso wrote was completely wrong in the context of a healthy body?
..I would have presumed one would have thought that I had elaborated his statement in depth a bit more...
Maybe I am just stupid. But that's only the case if you have cancer?
KiwiChic wrote:Bella Dea wrote:So Kiwi, what you are saying is that what Wilso wrote was completely wrong in the context of a healthy body?
..I would have presumed one would have thought that I had elaborated his statement in depth a bit more...
What you posted actually is almost the exact opposite of what Wilso posted. Do you have a reference for that?
Thanks ehbeth. I guess I am not stupid for thinking that she was saying Wilso was wrong.
ahh found the reference
Quote: Tattoo pigment from decorative tattoos may migrate to the regional lymph nodes. In patients who develop malignant melanoma and who have been tattooed, this pigment may clinically mimic metastatic disease. OBJECTIVE. We wish to alert clinicians that pigment from tattoos may migrate to the regional lymph nodes. In the unusual instance of a tattooed patient who develops malignant melanoma
reference link
It appears that what can happen is that clinicians can be fooled into thinking that someone has a malignant melanoma - when what they've got is migrated dye. They're recommending additional testing that needs to be done when trying to diagnose malignant melanomas in patients with tattoos.
No relationship between the tattoos and the melanomas.
ehBeth wrote:KiwiChic wrote:Bella Dea wrote:So Kiwi, what you are saying is that what Wilso wrote was completely wrong in the context of a healthy body?
..I would have presumed one would have thought that I had elaborated his statement in depth a bit more...
What you posted actually is almost the exact opposite of what Wilso posted. Do you have a reference for that?
Read it properly...you say I posted something the opposite, when I clearly stated I had elaborated in depth a bit more
You may have posted more, kiwichic - but it didn't clarify Wilso's point.
In fact what you posted suggested the opposite.
Well, in any case, it's good to know my tats won't infect my nodes and kill me silently.
nahh, you'll be fine, Bella.
First tattoo
I don't have any tattoos, although I wouldn't mind a nice little cat coiling around one ankle. However, there's enough pain in life without looking for more - even if ehBeth says it was more ticklish.
Gotta admit that my ink guy thought my reactions and tolerances were a bit unusual.
We had to stop two or three times during the second tat as I was starting to giggle from the ticklishness.
one can get a shallow tattoo - only in the top layers of the skin - which will fade away in 2-3 years. friend had it. now she wants permanent.
my fiance is 31yrs old he has full sleeved Maori tribal tattoo's on both arms done in thick black ink....I dont think you will find him saying it was 'ticklish'
Women generally have better tolerance for pain than men, kiwichic, and my particular life experience with needles (for medical reasons) make my tolerances particularly good - and, yes, it was ticklish at times.
My ankle one did tickle. Vibrated up my leg.
